ADVERTISING INJURY APPLIES TO USE OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S NAME AS ADVERTISING IDEA

 

ADVERTISING INJURY APPLIES TO USE OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S NAME AS ADVERTISING IDEA

 

Commercial General Liability

Advertising Idea

Personal and Advertising Injury

 

 

Vibram, USA, Inc. (Vibram) developed a minimalist running shoe and named it Bikila. The Bikila family sued Vibram arguing that Vibram used the name after Abebe Bikila who was a legendary barefooted runner. They argued, among other items, that Vibram was being unjustly enriched by using the name without authorization. Vibram sent the suit to its commercial general liability carrier, Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company in Salem (Holyoke) for coverage.

Holyoke denied coverage but offered to provide a defense under a reservation of rights letter. Holyoke and Vibram then turned to the trial court with both sides requesting summary judgment regarding the coverage issue.

The trial court ruled that the complaint was about a personality right. Personality rights are part of the broader term intellectual property rights. The policy did not cover intellectual property rights, so the court granted summary judgment to Holyoke. Vibram appealed.

Vibram argued that coverage was found in clause (f) in the definition of advertising injury that reads as follows:

“the use of another’s advertising idea in your “advertisement”

The term “advertisement is defined as:

A notice that is broadcast or published to the general public of specific market segments about your foods, products or services for the purpose of attracting customers or supporters.

The Bikila family demonstrated that they used the Bikila name to promote a variety of running-related ventures. The Supreme Court Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that because the Bikila family used the name for the same purpose as Vibram that it was arguing an advertising injury case that was tied to an advertising idea.

The supreme court reversed the trial court’s decision and granted summary judgment to Vibram.

Holyoke Mutual Insurance Company in Salem, v Vibram USA, Inc. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk, September 12, 2018, 480 Mass. 480, 106 N.E. 3rd 572